Those of you who read my
previous post about getting a response to my letter urging Senator Durbin to support the censure motion, know that there is another Illinois senator, who, as it turns out, is a little more popular these days than the Assistant Minority Leader.
Read Senator Obama's response to the same request for support, and let's see whether the vitrol from this community is as potent as it was with Durbin. Let me say, before you read his response below the fold, that while I am disappointed in Obama's response, I do believe it is honest. Those with the "traitor" button on a hairtrigger should pause before responding. With that said, follow me...
Thank you for writing about Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush. I understand your strong feelings on this issue. While I share your frustration and anger, I do not think censure is justified at this time.
I agree with Senator Feingold that the Administration's attitude toward congressional oversight and the FISA law has been cavalier and arrogant. We are a nation of laws, and those laws should be applied to all of us, from humblest citizen to the president of the United States. No president should be allowed to knowingly and willing flout our laws, and I believe the President exceeded his authority with his domestic wiretapping program. The justifications offered - that the president possesses inherent presidential authority under Article II, or was granted that authority in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force -- seem to contradict prior precedent and our constitutional design.
But my and Senator Feingold's view is not unanimous. Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president's argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts.
Also, a censure resolution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem of unchecked executive power. It would not force the president to modify his domestic surveillance program or force the Senate Intelligence Committee to do its job. In order to do that, Congress must reassert its constitutional role in overseeing the domestic surveillance program. And it should bring the warrantless wiretapping program back under the authority of the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Therefore, my focus is on crafting an effective surveillance program that both combats terrorism and contains meaningful judicial review of wiretapping, which is the most effective way to restore balance between the battle against terrorism and the rule of law.
Finally, I can assure you that your opinion is important to me, and I hope my opinion is important to you. I will continue to try to bring my best judgment to the issues before the Senate, and let the people of Illinois make their best judgment on my service to the state.
Again, thank you for writing. I will closely follow the hearing on Senator Feingold's bill taking place in the Judiciary Committee this week to see if any further information surfaces that might impact my decision.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
I disagree with him about censure, obviously. I think that, if nothing else, there is a benefit from censuring a sitting president solely on the basis that it makes him worry about his legacy (whatever he may claim to the contrary, Bush would rather be remembered for leading a failed cause he believed in than being formally rebuked by the Congress as a liar). This gives an otherwise-irresponsible Executive something to think about before committing our treasure and our citizens to an ill-conceived cause, if not now, then in the future.
I believe in Barack. And, yet, he is compelled, for reasons that seem good to him, to make the political calculations like everyone else. It's extremely frustrating. And until he and the others who say that warrantless wiretapping and lying about it is all so terrible, realize that standing up and being counted for the rule of law (not just when a president lies about having sex in the East Room, but also canards about getting warrants when going after terrorists in the Rose Garden) is not akin to drinking the preverbial kool-aid, our party is going to be adrift on the question of integrity. We will have the worst of both worlds, painted by the Right as generally amoral, while the courageous few like Feingold get savaged by people like Lyndsey Graham with impunity.
There was nothing more shameful that I have seen about my party recently than watching Feingold left blowing in the wind today, the hot putrid air from the few Republican Senators that showed up, and nobody but Leahy to get Feingold's back (and even then, only for 5 minutes before he scampered). If Barack was serious that he would "closely follow" the Judiciary hearing, I hope that, in doing so, he learned something about standing up and being counted for what is right, for the rule of law, for our civil liberties, and doing so when it was politically unpopular to do so. That is what I have learned from Senator Feingold. That there are still a few people, thank God, with a megaphone willing to pour sunshine into darkness. I remain hopeful that Barack will join them.